Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Employer Culture

I recently applied for a job in
Wyoming. It was an entry-level reporting position in a small town,
and it was advertised via an unusual posting that seemed to encourage
a unique cover letter from me. I delivered that, received a response
that may or may not have been a form letter, and, on its request,
replied with a confirmation of my sincere interest in the position.

The original ad put more emphasis on
the setting of the job than on the job itself, and the response
really drove that home, emphasizing that the remote location was “not
a romantic getaway by any means,” which “might not suit
everyone.” My cover letter clearly outlined how I had always hoped
to live and work in a remote location after graduating from college
in the big city, and that the job seemed perfect for me. In my
confirmation of interest, I disputed the notion that it wasn't a
romantic getaway, and made it clear that in any event it was a place
I could see residing happily, especially if I had a career to build
upon there.

The editor sent a form letter to all
still-interested applicants to the effect that she would have more
time to go over the applications after a specific date. A week after
that date she wrote to me directly to confirm that I was not
to be interviewed, and in that brief message, she emphasized yet
again the apparent insecurities of her entire organization regarding
its setting, and explained that she had found someone who she thought
would bring a lot to the paper while also enjoying the surroundings.

When I actually hear back from
no-longer-prospective employers these days, I am no longer shy about
pushing them to the limits of their patience in pursuit of
explanations, and in this case I was really confused. I wrote to ask
her if I had somehow given the impression that I wouldn't have been
able to tolerate living in the sort of remote region that I had just
used two sincere letters to explain that I specifically wanted to
live in. She kindly pointed to a specific line in my second message.
This was the comment that sunk my application:

Speaking more generally, I'm not so
concerned with what the job or its surroundings can bring to me, as
with what I can bring to them.

Am I crazy for
being nonplussed by her reaction? That line came after two solid
paragraphs of explaining why the job and its surroundings appealed to
me, which followed upon an entire prior letter of the same, and yet
all of that was apparently wiped from this editor's short-term memory
by my decision to make the point that my values make me more
interested in doing a perfect job than having a job I consider
perfect.

I can't interpret
this in any other way than that I was refused an interview for yet
another job that I would have done fantastically well because I was
insufficiently selfish. The briefly-prospective employer has given
me the distinct impression that the job went to somebody whose
application placed more emphasis on how much he wanted someone to
give him that job, and less on how well he would perform its duties.

It's another
example of the seemingly backwards hiring practices that have been
dogging me for six goddamn years, and I took the opportunity to press
this person on it, writing back:

I've gotten a certain impression
many times over from people responsible for hiring. In your capacity
as such a person, which goal would you rank ahead of the other, if
you had to choose between them? 1) Finding someone who will do the
best job. 2) Finding someone who is least likely to leave the job.

I give her a lot of
credit for having been so communicative with me overall, but her
response to this question was pathetic:

It depends. I try to find a good
balance between the two.

Did I not make
myself clear? I know she tries to find a good balance between the
two. What I asked was which one was more important, and she simply
dodged the question, avoiding any acknowledgment that there is a
fragile value system at play in hiring practices. And though I can't
wrest a confirmation of this from anyone in a position to give it, I
consistently get the impression that human resource departments and
hiring managers are interested in finding people just good enough for
the open position that the company won't have to do anything to keep
that employee on board, because they'll probably never get a better
offer.

Other people that
I've known have been crippled in their job searches by this employer
culture, as well. Acquiring more qualifications often seems to harm
job seekers more than it helps – such as teaching at the college
level when one is looking for a career in early childhood education.
It's evidently not worth taking the risk on hiring a good educator, a
good writer, a good anything, if there's a good chance that their
ambitions extend beyond the position one is looking to fill.

Obviously
no one has admitted to this outright, but this most recent editor
rather distinctly suggested it. Her rejection of my application was
phrased so as to directly contradict the line that sunk my
application, the one in which I said it was most important to me that
I bring value to the organization that hires me. She wrote, “The
job and its surroundings are to me much more important.”

Much more important than what? Than
the person you hire being a good worker, a talented writer, a
committed journalist, a person of decent character? All of that
takes a backseat to believing that the job and its surroundings are
exactly what the applicant wants and that nothing will tempt him away
from whatever you're to offer him?

Anecdotal evidence doesn't count for
much – you can always find some example that supports what you
believe about the world – but at the same time that I and others I
have known seem to absorb the damaging effects of these employer
practices, I know of one person who appeared to be decidedly on the
good side of them.

My ex-girlfriend never graduated high
school, having gotten a GED instead. When I met her she had not been working for a longer period of time than I. During the time that I
knew her, she routinely quit jobs without notice. I later found she
took the same approach to relationships – find something better,
sever ties immediately. Despite the fact that her resume didn't
suggest impressive qualifications and the fact that she probably
didn't have great references from prior employers, she had little
problem walking out of one job and into another.

Why on Earth was she capable of being
hired immediately, whereas if I applied for the same jobs my resume
would be rejected without so much as a phone interview? The only
logical conclusion I can come to is the same observation about
employer culture. I can easily imagine hiring managers looking at
her past history and deciding, “this girl doesn't have a lot of
prospects in front of her; we'd be offering something that she should
be truly grateful for.” They may have been wrong on both points,
as to her graditude and her future outlook, but her mediocre resume
gave them good reason to believe that hiring her wasn't a gamble.

With every job I've had, my managers
have regarded me as having a work ethic that exceeds that of my
coworkers. My performance and responsiveness to training have been
roundly praised. The one time in my life that I got to work in an
office, I received a year-end bonus that exceeded that of the person
who had been promoted out of my position, even though I had only been
there for six months. Despite all of this, actually finding a job is
damn near impossible for me. I don't have a bit of doubt that I
would perform the responsibilities of any job that I applied for with
more competence and conviction than just about anyone competing with
me for it. But I'm nearly as confident that that's not primarily
what employers are looking for.

Of course, it could be that I'm taking
too positive a view of myself. It could be that I'm just a terrible
applicant. But I'm not about to assume that explanation in absence
of evidence for it, and I'm certainly not getting any from the sorts
of employers from whom I'm seeking jobs.

Previous to applying for this job in
Wyoming, I was rejected without interview for another one that I was
even better qualified for, and which was also out of my area. When I
asked why, the editor did see fit to get back to me, but her response
was utterly meaningless on point of qualifications. She said only
that the person she hired "had what she needed." But she also pointed
out that he had grown up in the area of the job, so I rephrased my
question and asked whether, if I'd had the same qualifications I do
now but had grown up in that region, I would have been at least
interviewed.

Her response still makes me angry, and
I expect that it will for as long as I struggle to have a legitimate
career before the end of my twenties. She wrote back with one line:
“Ed, I'm sorry. I'm not going to break it down.”

I had asked a straightforward yes-or-no
question. I was looking for some indication, even if perfectly
vague, as to whether my inability to secure a simple interview was
attributable to being underqualified, overqualified, or simply having
qualifications different from those that match the sorts of jobs I
apply for. I didn't ask her to answer to any of that, though. All
she had to do was say “yes,” “no,” or even “maybe.” To
do so would have taken less effort than it took to type what she did.

To date, I can't conceive of any reason
why she would respond that way, other than to be deliberately rude.
This is my entire life we're talking about, and all that a person
like her needs to do to give me a little more insight into why it
remains so far off the rails is to say either “yes” or “no,”
and she couldn't even do that.

I guess in light of that I should feel
very pleased with the Wyoming editor for putting forth the effort to
dodge my question in a way that at least seemed like an answer.
Maybe that counts as progress.

No comments:

Subscribe and Be Broken

About Me

I live my life in search of breaking points. It is only on the other side of them that I feel truly alive. It is only by breaking that I can build myself anew and develop as a person. I expect the same of society as a whole. Everything may come to a breaking point - a realization, a numerical, material, or emotional tipping point after which what has gone before can no longer be sustained. These are some of the breaking points I'm looking for.